CRM-M-40642-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CRM-M-40642-2025 Date of Decision: 30.07.2025 ROOP SHARMA ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Sitanshu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S.GREWAL , J (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNS for quashing of FIR No. 216 dated 21.05.2025 under Section 209 of BNSS- 2023 registered at Police Station Bhiwani City District Bhiwani and consequential proceedings arising thereto, being petitioner surrendered, thereafter his presence is not required in trial Court, in view of the settlement of dispute and respondent No.2- complainant has withdrawn the complaint No. NACT-618/2022 dated 18.04.2022 titled as Sarvender Vs. Roop Sharma under Section 138/142/of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is the outcome of a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 15.05.2025 in pursuance thereto the present FIR was registered. He further contended that the matter was compromised between the parties and the complainant appeared before the learned JMIC, Bhiwani and made a statement to that effect and the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant on 22.05.2025. He has referred to the statement given by the complainant and the order of Renu Rawat 2025.08.05 09.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40642-2025 2 the trial Court dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) in this regard. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the present FIR as the continuation of proceedings under Section 209 BNSS-2023 would be an abuse of process of law. He has replied upon the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M- 41656 of 2023, decided on 23.08.2023 wherein the FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC arising out of the same complaint between the parties has been quashed. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh versus State of Haryana and another, bearing Criminal Appeal No.4359 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025 and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab, bearing CRM-M-55315-2024, decided on 10.01.2025 and Deepak versus State of Haryana and another, bearing CRM-M-14623-2021, decided on 17.02.2022. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed person, pursuant to which FIR was registered against him under Section 209 of BNSS-2023, as he had failed to appear before the Court without any reasonable cause. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record. 6. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the present FIR registered under Section 209 of BNSS-2023 on the ground that the initial complaint bearing No. NACT-618/2022 dated 18.04.2022 has been withdrawn as the matter has been settled between the parties and the continuation of proceedings under Section 209, BNSS would Renu Rawat 2025.08.05 09.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40642-2025 3 be an abuse of process of law. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh versus State of Haryana and another(supra) has quashed the impugned FIR therein registered under Section 174-A IPC on the ground that the initial complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been settled between the parties. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:- 7.3 Now, what happens if the status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect. The answer is in the affirmative. We say so for the following reasons:- (i) The language of Section 174A, IPC says “whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by proclamation…”. This implies that the very instance at which a person is directed to appear, and he does not do so, this Section comes into play; (ii) What further flows from the language employed is that the instance of non-appearance becomes an infraction of the Section, and therefore, prosecution therefor would be independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C. being in effect; (iii) So, while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82, Cr.P.C., i.e., can only be started post the issuance of proclamation, they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect. (iv) We find that the Delhi High Court has taken this view, i.e., that Section 174A, IPC is a stand-alone offence in Mukesh Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi)19; Divya Verma v. State20; Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.21 For the reasons afore- stated, we agree with the findings made in these judgments/orders. At the same time, it stands clarified that we have not commented on the merits of the cases. (v) Granted that the offence prescribed in Section 174A IPC is indeed stand-alone, given that it arises out of an original offence in connection with which proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is initiated and in the said offence the accused stands, subsequently, acquitted, it would be permissible in law for the Court seized of the trial under such offence, to take note of such a development and treat the same as a ground to Renu Rawat 2025.08.05 09.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40642-2025 4 draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances of the case so warrant. 8. In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. That being the position of 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1023 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2619 Crl. M.C No, 1470 of 2021, Dated 17th May, 2022 law, let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra, the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence.” 8. The similar view has also been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab(supra) and Deepak versus State of Haryana and another(supra). 9. In the present case, since the original complaint relates to the dishonoured cheque has been withdrawn as the matter has been settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC against the petitioner. 10. Resultantly, the petition is disposed of and the impugned FIR No. 216 dated 21.05.2025 under Section 209 of BNSS-2023 registered at Police Station Bhiwani City District Bhiwani and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner are quashed. The order dated 15.05.2025 declaring the petitioner a “proclaimed person” passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani is also quashed. (H.S.GREWAL) 30.07.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.08.05 09.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document